Reports and commentaries in the Guardian (as well as in the mainstream media) analyzing Israel’s upcoming election which warn of a far-right shift within the Israeli electorate have been ubiquitous. Much of the reporting has focused on the possibility that Binyamin Netanyahu’s party may form a more right-wing coalition government following the election, one which will be injurious – if not fatal – to the “peace process”.

Here are excerpts from such prognostications on the Guardian’s Israel page since early January.

…disillusioned former peace negotiators and Middle East policy officials expect his “dysfunctional” and confrontational relationship with Binyamin Netanyahu to stagger along even if the Israeli prime minister returns to power after Tuesday’s election with a government even further to the right of the present one.”

Binyamin Netanyahu is on course to head a more hawkish and pro-settler government following Tuesday’s elections,

…

Support has drained to the ultra-nationalist, pro-settler Jewish Home, led by Netanyahu’s former chief of staff Naftali Bennett, in an indication of the hardening of opinion on the right of the Israeli political spectrum.”

“In Israel, public discourse is moving right. You can see it in the rise ofIsrael Hayom, the free, pro-Likud newspaper that has eclipsed Israel’s more traditional, centrist press. You can see it in the rise of Naftali Bennett, the settler leader whose party could come in third in the elections due later this month. You can see it the election campaign as a whole, in which the two-state solution is a virtual afterthought.”

“For now the focus is on the Israeli elections of 22 January. The polls suggest that a government ranked as one of the most right-wing in Israel’s history is set to be replaced by one even further to the right

Even if Bennett is kept out of coalition, Netanyahu will still head a more rightist government.

The centre of gravity is about to shift so far rightward that Netanyahu and even Lieberman will look moderate by comparison.”

Meanwhile, if you were curious about the political center of gravity in Palestinian society, you wouldn’t find much information on the Guardian’s ‘Palestinian territories’ page.

In fact, the ‘Israel’ page and the ‘Palestinian territories’ page look exactly the same:

However, for those interested, news regarding a possible extreme right Palestinian political coalition – which was reported in the Algemeiner, as well as in the Arab media – may provide some vital insight into Palestinian political culture.

The Algemeiner reported the following on Jan. 20:

“A member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, Dr. Ahmed Majdalani, told Al-Quds newspaper that he expects Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join with the PLO after National Council elections later this month, though the government will still headed by President Mahmoud Abbas.”

Hamas, in case it needs reminding, is an Islamist terrorist group which refuses to recognize a Jewish state within any borders, cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their founding charter, and whose leaders calls for the mass murder of Jews. Hamasadvocatesthe destruction of Israel through violent means, indoctrinates their children to become suicide bombers, and displays extreme intolerance towards women, gays, non-Muslims and their Palestinianpolitical opponents.

Even if PIJ doesn’t join with the PLO, Hamas and Fatah are currently working out plans to implement, by the end of this month, previous reconciliation agreements signed between the two parties.

So, any way you look at it, right-wing extremism within Palestinian politics is evidently so endemic that “terror groups who urge the ethnic cleansing of Jews” are considered mainstream – a dangerous phenomena which would certainly explain why, at least on national security issues, citizens of the Jewish state seem to have reached a more right leaning political consensus.

Of course, a truly “liberal” media institution would report on Palestine’s dangerous extreme right-wing drift, condemn a possible political coalition which includes groups espousing homicidal antisemitism – and which would necessarily end any hopes of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement – and contextualize Israeli political sentiments accordingly.

In other words, you won’t read much about Israel’s legitimate fears regarding the ominous strengthening of the Palestinian extremist right on the pages of the Guardian.

The obsession with the Israeli right and its “intransigence” shifts the focus away from the negative political manoeuverings of the PA and Hamas who offer no viable solution other than Israeli political and physical suicide and receive next to zero column inches of criticism or reporting. They are not made responsible for their murderous acts and their conduct is excused every time or praised with faint damns.

Arguably so. I don’t see anything in the above article that directly disputes this (although it would have to be pretty right wing to out-flank Shamir, in my view). But that’s NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. The article is asking for a smidgeon of perspective, a soupcon of context and a dash of balance in the levels of criticism piled on the relative governments.

Surely even you cannot deny that, if you are looking for “far right-wing”, you have to shoot some way past Netanyahu, Lieberman and Bennett (who, let us not forget, preside over a country where you are free to worship and love whoever you like) before you even approach the orbit of the Jew, gay, woman, Christian-bashing zealots who run Hamas and PIJ.

Israel is expected to elect the most right-wing government in its history…
Not more than a month ago you posted here a warning for Cifwatch readers saying that Cifwatch represents a tiny minority of right wing Israelis. Maybe this is the time for you to decide…

The Reason why Bibi is likely to win has to do with similar reasons why Hamas has won.
It’s called the lack of choice.
The Centrals are all fragmented and the left, Well the left has become a populistic excuse of a party.

Why don’t you form your own political party, Nat? I can really see you as the Israeli equivalent of the head of the Monster Raving Loony party or Lord Buckethead himself. Think of it, you might even attract a following!

Your obsession with British journalists shifts the focus away from the negative political maneuverings of the current Government of Israel, which refuses to put an end to its settlement policy in the territory of the neighbor state despite repeated warnings from its closest allies in the US and in the European Union.

Israel’s settlements in the territory of Palestine (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza) are in contravention of article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

This is why Israeli settlements in the territory of Palestine are considered illegal by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, the ICRC, the European Union and the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions.

There is no state of Palestine, so what? In Gaza there are only terror organisations and it is not occupied, the status of Jerusalem is contended, the armistice lines are no borders.
There is no judgement of the iCJ, the High Contracting Parties never stated that, your little Conference was not attended by the important parties, it was a minor assembly, the ICRC which excluded Israel as amember for a long time, is not an institution of legislation, the majority of the UN assembly gives its political opinion, why not? The European Union has a common political opinion on that? Which institution exactly?
You keep repeating the same refuted allegations, faker.

So ‘Palestine’ has the same status as the Vatican, Whoopy Do! I am so excited the snow outside is melting.

By the way Dear ‘Nat’ I have posed to a few questions to you on different threads over the last few days and am still waiting for you to attempt to answer. Are you waiting for your ‘organ grinder’ to give you an answer so you can copy and paste it?

Gerald, the key point you miss is that this is the first time that Palestine has been recognised by the UN as a “state”. Which is hugely significant, despite the fact that it is only as a rump as a result of US immorality in the UNSC.

Sanity, No I hadn’t missed the change in the terminology the UN uses to describe the status of ‘Palestine’

I seriously doubt if those who are trumpeting this as a great victory and recognition are aware of exactly what happened. I’ll be charitable and assume that the likes of ‘Nat’ have problems with literacy and have yet to understand that the Non-Member Observer State status is worth zilch. Indeed you could argue that it has not only failed to change the situation on the ground it has hampered the peace process.

So if the ‘Palestinians’ have to rely on the likes of ‘Nat’, who claims to occasionally visit Israel, then God help them.

Dear ‘Nat’ you can keep repeating your mantra as much as you like but it does not make it so.

Now Dear ‘Nat’ is it your literacy or veracity that is at fault in your inability to recognise the decision of the UN General Assembly?
I’m still waiting for you to answer the questions posed to you, a less charitable person than myself might wonder why.

“Nat,”
Again, you’ve perverted the meaning of “transfer” laid out in the convention. No matter how many times you’re corrected on a whole host of issues you continue to repeat, repost, and copy and paste the same bilge repeatedly.

Israel’s settlements in the territory of Palestine (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza) are in contravention of article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Article 49 (6) does not merely prohibit the occupying state from forcefully transferring parts of its population; it also prohibits any action by the occupier which facilitates such transfer.

Jordan annexed the West Bank, now it is concerning its borders disputed territory, East Jerusalem status is contended, Gaza is not occupied, disciple of goebbels.
It is questionable that the article is adressing the situation properly as the article was meant for existing states.
As there is no state of Palestine with secured borders ..
By repeating refuted allegations you just indicate the limits of rational Palestinian arguments, and why they cannot negotiate, only perpetrate terror, which you support.

Dear Fritz “Goebbels disciple” Wunderlich, to use the full, ugly name you fancy attributing to yourself, Israel’s settlements in the territory of Palestine (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza) are in contravention of article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Article 49 (6) does not merely prohibit the occupying state from forcefully transferring parts of its population; it also prohibits any action by the occupier which facilitates such transfer.

Officially? Where, please provide the document where the PLA is officially recognised as state.
Till now the PLA has been granted the status of a non member, not the state, a difference which escapes undereducated.

Again Gaza. Better take it off when you paste or do you mean to tell us that we have settelmetn in Gaza?
The status of the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) can in no way be conceived as being governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention for the simple reason that they are not occupied territories as defined in this document. Paragraph (6) of Article 49 of the said Fourth Geneva Convention is irrelevant to the question at hand in that Article 2 stipulates that the territory under issue must belong to a High Contracting Party. This is not the case, as the territory under discussion did not belong to any such Party.

The Palestinian territory (West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza) has been occupied by Israel since 1967, Alexa, This is something on which all governments in the world agree. All of them consider that the settlements were built in contravention of international law and that they are counter-productive to peace and to the two-state solution.

Gaza is not occupied by Israel any more.
The 4th Geneva convention article 2 say that the territory under issue must belong to a High Contracting party . So do tell me to what country did the Judea and Samaria belonged to?

Nat and Sanity, a review of your mendacious comments in the past and now demonstrate your eagerness, whenever this subject comes up, to support terrorism. You ignore any reasoned caution excercised by those who seek to safeguard their own lives and livelihood in their millions comprising of minorities and who would not want to risk handing any land over without proper safeguards. To make repetitive and dull observations does not make your observations truer or acceptable.

Recent commentators of history (1967-2013) and politicians have blurred the issue of title to territories that clearly have added grist to the mill to the false argument that these lands do not belong to the Jewish people. A body of pseudo law has developed yet Israel has offered to hand land to a new sovereign entity yet to be created with its own polity that has been repeatedly rejected. This therefore does not give critics any cause to point a finger in one direction.It has to equally look at the other parties’ conduct before passing judgment.

Indeed the move to the right and more hardened positioning is a direct response to the Arabs own creative input to destroy anything that might lead to a resolution. The Arab world is in turmoil and no leadership with any integrity subsists in nearly all of the 21 countries they have. And you Nat blame this ALL on settlements that take up a very small area of land!? Do you expect any reasoned person who exists under these conditions to take your statement seriously?

And who is to say that the right are incapable of compromise? That is also a falsehood.

I have spoken with left thinking people in Israel. Their hearts are dictating their thoughts. They are young and idealistic, but they also are without any hope of influencing the situation. They yearn for Israel to make the first move and find a way of changing their opponents destructive thought processes, but they also see the missiles landing on their heads and that to simply do what they are preaching will not halt this terrible dilemma. Yes, the left are turning right simply because the Arabs do not offer any alternatives.

Now the Guardian and others are stuck in the oversimplistic analysis summarised in the axiom “Reducing Occupation Lowers Violence”. Er … no it doesn’t.

Absolutely right sanity . Little agency to do anything more than it has to , to survive. Arab negativity gives rise to all kinds of anomalies in which people generally will not have much of a future and equality will continue mainly from their own doing. The Arabs play the the long game. If not now, may be in a hundred years, is what they believe. That is their view of history. It has hardly changed for centuries.The Israelis will need to show that even after that time that the Arabs will not have succeeded, and may be sometime in between ( one hopes,) that the Arabs might just see a future in a peaceful outcome by leaving israel alone and going on to develop their own economies and education and radically transforming their societies to accomodate institutions to keeping law and respected throughout the lands without coercion and despotism. Its bleak, but that is the truth of the matter.

Yes Nat. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it is the best of a bunch of alternatives. As I have explained to Sanity, where the problem really lies, I won’t waste too much answering your comment.

The 2 state solution envisaged by the PA does not recognise Israel as a Jewish state. Its insistance is on the return of “refugees” totalling (they say) 4 million (sometimes 5 and sometimes 6) to Israel is a clear indication that they do not seek peace, but israel’s destruction. Nor are they interested in democracy. (Just name ONE Arab country that is anything close to a democracy?)

Arabs have had independence for many years in 21 countries. 7 million square miles and a population of over 200 million. They have huge oil revenues. They produce little else They import most of their food . They are poorly educated. There is no university in the Arab world to rank with any top university in the world.They have little excuse. They just simply don’t have the infrastructure and the will to change very much. Progress is there, but it is cosmetic on the whole.Israel is a light year ahead compared and that is a serious problem. What to do to change the dynamic. Please have a go at suggesting how this might be brought about and to stop pointing the finger at Jews for it not happening.

The bitter irony of it all is that Arabs live immeasurably better in the Jewish state and derive huge benefits.That is what an imperfect democracy has brought them.

Now I might consider the possibility, however remote, that you are “defending democracy” in Israel if (a) there was no other context to your argument in terms of your previous posts, and (b) I could be sure that you know what “democracy” means.

Joshua, the only people who do not offer alternatives here are the far right wing extremists who want to cling to Israel’s illegal settlements at all costs, even though they know it will make peace and a Jewish state with a Jewish majority impossible.

Only a just, responsible settlement can keep Israel both Jewish and Democratic, and ensure our children enjoy peace.

Awww, “nat”, you are soooo sensitive in your concern with children. You should work in a Hamas hate-kindergarten. How can you be such an utter fraud, a complete and shameless hoax, with no character whatsoever? Just nauseating.

People here have been at pains to explain to you, that if it was all about settlements, there would have been peace a long time, unless of course if it is all about the settlement in the land of Israel that you refer to. The settlements in international law otherwise are as legal as the whole of the land of israel and as is Syria and iraq, because the boundaries were all agreed at the same time.

. What you might be suggesting is handing over of territory to bring about the creation of a new state or alternatively grant citizenship to those already there and be done with a 2 state option, but not to integrate 5 million refugees. Indeed there is some merit in your argument that israel did not do this in 1967. Meir Shamgar, the Advocate General, later Attorney General and a Judge in the Supreme Court chose to apply the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention to administer these aras contrary to the rights already established in in binding international law that would not give rise to confusion today. Israel effectively put its rights aside in favour of trying to reach a peace settlement with its neighbours. It doesn’t matter whether a right or left wing government is in power at any time. Those legal rights subsits until this day.

In the context of this more detailed analysis your assertion of a “just responsible settlement” can only come about if the Arabs choose to change tack, and genuinely do so. Not the other way round.

Very simple Sanity. Land allocated for settlements are legal. The whole of the WB/Judea and samaria belongs to the Jews. Arabs who own land are entitled to live there and their civil rights protected. They have no sovereign rights unless there is a final status agreement allowing them sovereign rights. If there is to be an agreement I see no reason why Jews should be deprived of their rights to live there. as Arabs have rights to live within the Green line.But will this agreement come about sanity? You insist that settlements is stumbling block. If so, why iwhen there were no settlements was it that an agreement could not be reached. And before 1948, with even less to accept the Arabs rejected peace. And before 1947 , in 1936, more rejection. No No No No No.That is the Arab position. Don’t delude yourself into thinking otherwise. You fail to convince again again and again.

I guess that attitude is not really likely to produce peace, eh? The question I asked was what possible reason there is for building there. Not can you retro-justify it, but a positive reason for doing so. Is there one?

What you describe, Jews living in Palestine and Palestinians living in Israel sounds great. But pretty close to what might be described as a one-state solution. Perhaps what you had in mind was something like the Irish solution? Two states but with free movement and full civil rights? But aren’t advocates of these ideas usually criticised for denying Israelis self-determination?

I don’t have an attitude about settlements. The question asked is who has legal title to this land. Since 1920, that point was settled unanimously by the League of Nations. Nothing has changed that status. At the moment the position is quite simply this: the Jews occupy more of the lands that were allocated to them after, 1967 and have attempted to relinquish territory in return for peace in 1993, 1995 and 2000. Gaza was vacated in 2005 and the world has entered into semantics about whether occupation continues or not. Within the rest of the land there is a significant minority that don’t want to be under Israel, but more so, don’t want an Israel altogether. The Charters of the dominating organisations that lead these dissenting minorities make it quite clear what they want. They don’t mince there words about wanting to commit a genocide and there is clear and unambiguous evidence of what Arabs who don’t like others are capable of going on right now.

This was not the case in Ireland or is the case in Ireland.There is no comparator. And that in itself is the problem, because Israel is being preessured to accept terms no other country would be expected to comply under conditions that cannot compare. And if Arabs are quite happy with this approach than to take another course, the situation appears hopeless. If there is a genuine self-realisation that this is a failing formula, only then can the formula change to something more creative and more productive. sadly the closed and controlled society, which is essentially tribal prevents self-reflection and admission of fault within the shame-honour dynamic that dictate the modus vivedi in such societies.

Sanity, you may disagree. You may think the settlements are the problem: Israel should give up land first: What they do is illegal and brutal: Israel should show an example to the world and so on, but that’s not how it works in this region.

With others on this thread, you drift into all kinds of non-sequiturs about comparing Nazis and so on and how demeaning all this is. There is plenty plenty Israel bashing going on, but one side to this dispute barely gets a mention despite immeasurably worse conduct being perpetrated and ignored. Your failure to acknowledge it suggests that you harbour strong resentments about Israel being there at all, and even though may not be that explicit you certainly imply it.

Dear Avinoam, the population of the Falkland Islands is primarily of British descent (about 70 % of the population). You cannot compare this to the situation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, where 500,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements built in contravention of international law among 2.5 million Palestinians.

Moreover, all Falkland islanders are full British citizens, while Israel never granted citizenship to Palestinians living in Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank. This has resulted in a strange situation in which settlers living in Area C have the right to vote, while Palestinians living in the same Area C don’t.

If you really cared about children, you would be alongside those here who condemn the Hamas’ latest proud declaration at http://tinyurl.com/a8n46lb (which infringes the rights of its children and amounts to child abuse) rather than blether on here in your ignorant way

What is racist? Islamist strategy, sexual suppression, reproduction war or the nurturing of generations of Palestinians by the world??
Maybe your thinking is it, then better learn the cultural skills of reading and interpreting, it is not too late, even for otherwise gifted like you.

The Guardian is at least guilty of the racism of lowered expectations since it supports the lunatics in Hamas who want to kill Jews because they are Jews because they “can’t help being what they are”. Why did you write for them? Were you short of money or morals or both?

“The American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) took it upon itself to do what no Israeli governmental body had considered doing: It… started counting heads. It worked out that the doomsday scenario was based on a massive fabrication. In 1997, the PA published census figures that exaggerated its population figures in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem by nearly 50 percent(!). The PA double counted Arab Jerusalemites, included hundreds of thousands of emigrants to its population rolls, asserted mass immigration when in fact there has been net emigration from the PA since 1995. It exaggerated fertility rates and underplayed mortality rates. In all, the PA added approximately 1.4 million people who did not exist to its population rolls.

According to this study, Judea and Samaria was home to only around 1.4 million “Palestinians” and not the much higher figures quoted by the Arabs and Israeli Left.

The arabs do what they do best . Lie. They lied about the number of arab immigration to Israel before 1948 and they continue to lie now.

Hey, sanitarium, it’s about time for you to change subjects and parrot your crap about the blog’s funding. We’re waiting. Meanwhile, you should try to count how many times you accused people here of racism. This is your magic word, isn’t it? Or is it ‘jerk-off’?

It’s not that many. So far when people have used Nazi analogies (you, Fritz and Matzoh Maker, I believe), when people have used racial epithets (you with respect to the French) and when people accuse a whole race-group of supposedly negative characteristics (Alexa calling Arabs liars). I only wheel out the racist term when it’s merited. I also called out Steve for posting antisemitic racist conspiracy theories.

‘Anti-racist racist’ – that’s a new one on me! I think that’s my new favourite CIF-watch nonsense phrase. It’s even better than “anti-Israeli Israeli’. Where do you guys get this material? It’s priceless.

Sure dr. cocks, you finally identified yourself, eh? You and insanity are prototypical racist anti-racists. The type that accusing everyone of “racist” the moment you are challenged, to maks your own anti-Jewish obsession. Typically you tend to be a leftard too.

Sanity it has nothign to do with racism and everything to do with facts. The arab lied about the fact that most of the palestinian were immigrants from arab countries .Saying they lived here for tousnad of years. The arab lies that Israel have no history vonection to jerusalem. they lied that there was no temple. i read a new one today that the jews stole the Star of David from the muslim. i could go on and on . again it has nothing to do with race and verything to do with facts.

Sadly throuh all our history arabs were lying about us. These are all facts . demographic lie is just one of them.
Even before 48 in a testimony to the Peel comittee the mufti admitted that the arab saying that the lands in Palestine were stolen by the jews wasn;t ture

‘Nat’ when you write;
“Moreover, all Falkland islanders are full British citizens, while Israel never granted citizenship to Palestinians living in Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank. This has resulted in a strange situation in which settlers living in Area C have the right to vote, while Palestinians living in the same Area C don’t”

Are you suggesting that Falkland Islanders who are full British Citizens have the same voting rights as British Citizens, like myself, who were born and live in the U.K.?

The same tune at every election since the seventies: the most right-wing government in its History.- when Begin was elected, when Shamir was elected, when …
So much lying, faking and denouncing when it comes to Israel – see the likes of Nutties, Stevies and the other Mosley boys who are serviced by the Guardians Post-Mosleys.

Firstly the Irgun emerged after the Arab pogroms against Jews in 1929 due to the unsufficient protection by British forces, feeling the need of an armed self defence against the perpetrated atrocities by Arabs.
Secondly you are talking of two organisations, Irgun and Lehi.

Irgun answered the Arab terror because of the British lack of protection against Arab pogroms which you don`t adress, you know-nothing..
What about the Arab terror organisations in this time murdering a lot of Jews and British soldiers? What about the Syrian Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a terrorist shot by the British, his followers hanged, today worshipped as great Palestinian martyr by the Hamas who names rockets and terror brigades after him?
These Arab terrorists triggered Irgun.

Sanity: “when people use offensive racial epithets and Nazi analogies I call that out as racism. Got a problem with that?”

Yes, you are a hypocrite who does not apply that standard equally, especially to the only state since Nazi Germany that applies eliminationist anti-semitism as government policy: Iran and its proxies: Hezbollah – with members in the Lebanese government and Hamas in Gaza.

Actually, when Hamas was elected back in the day (you’ll remember that Hamas won an election and then Israel pressured the US and the EU into not recognising that election?) there was plenty of coverage about how Palestinians had been driven to vote for Hamas following the failure of Fatah and the Oslo Accords. Ironically this was Israel’s intent since it supported Hamas in its infancy in order to undermine Fatah. Anyway, back then, there was plenty of coverage of the issue. In fact, what you seem to be doing here is obfscating, since you are obviously from the extreme right yourself.

Hmm. So apparently it is “obfuscating” to seek perspective and context in the media’s reporting of the Middle East? And it is an “extreme right” perspective to ask why the media doesn’t roundly condemn groups who call for the indiscriminate murder of people of a particular religion (note – not nationality, as if that would be any more acceptable, but religion)?

I expect that back then when Hamas was elected, you were crying out for the newspapers to put that event into context by reporting about Israel’s rightward drift and resorting to targeting civilians, etc.into persepctive and context?

Eh? No – I was calling out for the “election” to be put into the context of the genocidal nature of the aims of Hamas, and the (ahem) “free and fair” nature of the election (given the tendency for Hamas’s opponents to “slip” while standing on the tops of tall buildings etc).

The same again, unnamed US officials stated that ..
No documentary, no official statement
“Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.”
Strange enough when Hamas was officially founded in 1987
Up pops Cordesman, the main propagator of this conspiraycy at policy think tanks:
Israel “aided Hamas directly — the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),” said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.
I already debated the same item three years ago and the only ‘serious’ reference for this conspiracy the debaters could give me, was – Cordesman.
“Israel’s support for Hamas “was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,” said a former senior CIA official.”
Unnamed, sure, a good and valuable source, so to say. :-)
“According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were “weak and dormant” until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.
After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da’wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge. ”
So, the Hamas emerged out of the Egypt Brotherhood or not? And for this Dawaa they need a lot of moolah. And for sure Israel did not waste money for Dawaa. So, who paid the Dawaa???
“Social influence grew into political influence,” first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
“According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini’s Iran.”
So according to unnamed US officials it was Israel, but now, for the first time, oil-producing states are mentioned, cautiously as those were and are allies of the USA, funding a lot of political agenda and lobbies in the USA, even supporting the CIA with funds in Afghanistan and elsewhere. So deflection is needed.
We have now the context, politically Iran, overtaken by Islamists, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the oil dollar souring since 1974, the start of worldwide financing of Islamist movements by the oil producing states, the increasing dependence of the west on oil at this time.
The conspiracy narrative must explain one thing; how could that get out of hand?
“What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis-à-vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said.”

Please read the rest of the article to see what strange and weird thesis is put forward, on the one hand assuming that Hamas was sucessfully infiltrated, on the other hand that it was not, on the one side that it was set up against the PLO, on the other side for better identifying dangerous Islamists. Such self contradictory crap cannonly be believed by idiots and conspiracy crackers, especially antisemitc ones.

By the way, as I had to do with archives of secret services and with oral history as historian, the article is a classical red herring, used as deflection.
The known paper trail of Hamas indicates no Israeli funding, just the normal transfer of donations to diverse Islam charities, one of them the precursor of Hamas.
So even correct handling of the financial administration at the time Israel was in Gaza is turned into a conspiracy by Antisemites.

What a bullshit.
Hamas was founded and financed by the Egypt muslim brotherhood. Israel had no interest in fostering an islamist movement, it just transferred donated money to a lot of religious charities as administrative force.
The PLO created the lie, that Hamas was a Zionist iinvention, the Hamas claimed that the PLO is a Zionist traitor because of the negotiations. Now this is common in the Arab world to deounce the political enemy as Zionist. Just look at Egypt how many “Zionist agents” appeared on the political surface since the political opening, almost the whole new political elite.was already named.
“The Palestinians were driven..- ”
I see, the helpless had to vote for the terror organisation, otherwise …
Since the second Intifada it is well known that every Palestinian organisation looses its influence when negotiating with Israel and looses money from abroad for corrupting and buying the people, that`s why the Hamas won, advocating and perpetrating terror, money from abroad to buy and corrupt the people.
Repeating lies, having no concrete proofs of the allegations, demonising Israel by rising the narrative of conspiracy, of intents of Israel as there would be no elections, no differing governments
“..coverage about how Palestinians had been driven to vote for Hamas following the failure of Fatah and the Oslo Accords. Ironically this was Israel’s intent since it supported Hamas in its infancy in order to undermine Fatah”
is a typical Antisemitic smear.
Not surprising, your posting of this variation of puppetmastering.
I would be disappointed if you argumented correctly and without antisemitc conspiracy thinking.

Besides WSJ reports a tale of Mr. Cohen who worked for more than two decades in Gaza, responsible for religious affairs until 1994.
Strange, at this time Hamas was only one of a lot of Islamic movements in Gaza and strangely enough, it was forbidden for israeli executive under israel law to meet Islamist representatives. In 1993 the Hamas began with its suicide terror bombings, the organisation was founded in 1987, by the Egyptian brotherhood which you didn`t deny.
So this Cohen thinks that Israel supported a Muslim Brotherhood which grew to a mass terror organisation in six years? What a garbage.
Nest time you will tell us Israel let them bomb their own citizens.
Tell-taling instead of facts.
Please provide evidence, nazilike Antisemite.

Here we go again, a Nazi analogy used in a discussion of Israel Palestine, deployed by Mr Fritzl. Even if you think I am an antisemite, which I’m not, to compare me to the Nazisof course completely belittles the suffering of those who actually did suffer at the hands of the Nazis. This is a very very racist way of writing and really you should be banned.

You should have been banned a long time ago, sanitarium, for your humungus hypocrisy, shameless sanctimonious double-standards, hysterical accusations of racism, constant whining, diversion trolling and sphomoric vulgarity.

If you behave/condone/enable/excuse islamofascist genocidaires, yes. If you behave like Goebbels and his big-lie technique, yes. And if you compare Israel to the nazis, you are just a perverted anti-Semite.

Have to say this is a tremendously boring and pointless argument you two have, SerJew and Sanity. Frankly, SerJew’s labelling of Sanity as “nazilike” is pathetic, but so is Sanity’s bleating about racism every time anyone mentions the word “nazi”.

Would you please take this to a closed forum so you can stop wasting everybody else’s time?

Hey, Labenal, no one is forcing you to read anything. It seems you share with inSanity this need to be a blog police. |And I didn’t call him Nazi, that was Fritz. So, you owe an apology, don’t you think?

You’re right. It was indeed Fritz who calls Sanity “nazilike”. Sorry, SerJew. But I resent the implication I am trying to be “blog police”. I am merely expressing my opinion that these comment threads are getting clogged up with endless insults back and forth – not just between you and Sanity, it is true – that add nothing to the substantive matters under discussion and make it harder to find the genuinely interesting points that are sometimes made.

Sanity you bemoan the use of Nazi analogies and complain that it belittles the suffering of those who did suffer at the hands of the Nazis.
I understand the point you are trying to make about using the suffering of others to make a point. So why are you prepared to use the suffering of the Fritzl family in a frankly childish attempt to abuse another poster?
Can you not see how your claim to stop using the suffering of others to make points stinks to high-heaven of hypocrisy and double standards.

Again, poor child of your mother who wanted it, some lessons.
Belittling it would be if I say you are a Nazi, nazilike is not equalling.
.. racist way … – sure, Antisemites like you are a special sort of racists.

Once again, making alegations of racism without evidence. If you have evidence for my being racist, please bring it forward. Otherwise it’s unclear what you are doing, except making yourslef look like a wally.

Sorry, where did I use the word “masterminding”? You put it in quotation marks, I presume you can link to the quote. Because as I recall, I just said that they supported Hamas, and other Islamists, in order to isolate Fatah. Too much tactics, too little strategy.

Why all this bother over the Guardian’s stance concerning tomorrow’s elections? None of the articles published accurately reflect what has been happening on the ground during the election campaign, nor would I expect the Guardian to provide accurate information. Guardian sympathies lie almost exclusively with the Balad party, which only represents a fraction of the Israeli Arab voters, yet one might come to think from all the publicity that it was a significant political factor. Naphtali Bennett, who has succeeded in gaining more potential religious- Likud voters gets prominence while Yair Lapid, whose party started with no seats in the outgoing Knesset is all but ignored. And there is almost nothing on Meretz’s revival or Hadash’s steady consolidation. As many of the below-the-line comments on CiF indicate, many Guardian readers haven’t a clue about Israel, its political system or its problems and the articles are designed more to provide the simplistic views and prejudices of those readers rather than deal with the complexities.

In a political cluster where could the PLFP, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Djihad and, and , and be located?
They argue with the bigger Ara world, the bigger Islam world, brotherhood, annihilation, revenge, blood, faith and soil – classical right extremist combinations.

Ah, SerJew, jerking off over this again, are you? Why continue to post in response to me since you dislike me so much? Why the diversionary tactics? Are you employed by this site? What’s your relationship to Adam Levick?

I wish I could return the compliment, but you are anything but fun. Are you going to answer the question? What’s your relationship to Adam Levick? I’ll even answer the question myself! I do not know him at all, I have never met him. To the best of my knoweldge I have never met any of th econtributors or commenters to this site.

Always demanding and demanding, eh , sanitarium, just like a spoiled-brat or a wannabee Soviet commissar. You seem not to understand that the onus is on your shoulders, dude. YOU fancy yourself as the blog-police, but you are nothing but a whiner. Tragicomical.

Well, an antisemite calls his demonisation of Jews reason. These are postmodern times we must remember when every antisemite can claim reason for his antisemitism and at the same time can deny being one.

What i’ve learned from today’s conversation with SerJew:
1. He doesn’t have a problem with Nazi analogies, even when they involve Jews
2. He avoids answering uncomfortable questions, such as about his links to Adam Levick
3. He jerks off a loooottt!

Well, well. Good for your, oh, Knight of Hypocrishire. And what did we learn from your repetitive trolling? Nothing new, really, just the usual:
1. you are a shameless hysterical hypocrite.
2. you are a run-of-the-mill anti-racist racist.
3. you are a whiner.
5. you suck up to the moderator all the time.
4. you are a vulgar creep with a fixation on masturbation and semen.

Er, good try. That comment is actually complaining that Israelis (if you want to conflate Jews and Israelis that’s up to you, though it’s wrong and I never do it) were being dehumanised by their involvement in a brutal conflict and the institutions that perpetuate that conflict. Nice try!

Not at all, I just believe in proportionality. And I also believe that not all Israelis are Jews, so I believe that Arab Israelis should defend Jewish Israelis and that Jewish Israelis should defend Christian Israeli, and that atheist Israelis should defend Jewish Israelis etc. etc. I believe that the IDF has an institutionalised culture of abuse and dehumanisation, which is not necessary, an army can tend that way but needn’t be like that. Unfortuantely in Israeli society the army is given a free pass way too often.

Oh, is that so? Please define what the heck is this non-sense about “proportionality”. In war, you should inflict casualties on your enemies; period. Still the IDF is hyper-careful regarding civilians, much more than most armies in history. But civilian casualties will happen: that’s war and war sucks. Maybe you should complain against Hamas’ criminal tactics of putting civilians in the line of fire, just to get the type of reaction from your type of couch-potato whiners.

You just want excuses to blame Jews for defending themselves. That’s what bothers you. Otherwise, you’d complain about the thousands of Hamas rockets launched against Israel; you’d complain about Hamas’ genocidal intent and its islamofascist rule in Gaza; you’d complain about Abbas’ rejectionism and holocaust denialism; of palarabs culture of death and hatred. etc. etc. But you only have eyes for Israel’s blunders, that you amplify, exaggerate and put totally out of context just to be able to vent your self-righteous nonsense.

See, you are distracting by referring to Hamas. Hamas’s crimes have been documented extensively by, for example, HRW and Amnesty.

I’m not even talking about the IDF’s abuses in wae against Palestinians (which are war crimes, by the way). I’m talking about the way that the IDF as an institution dehumanises Israelis, makes them scared of Palestinians, gives them negative views of Arabs and desensitises them to violence. All paid for by the tax payer. Which I think is disgusting. I’m quite happy for Israel to defend itself. Just not in a way that harms both Palestinians and Israelis.

My issue with the IDF is not with its remit to protect Israel from attack but rather with its indiscriminate actions, and with the role it plays in dehumanising those enrolled in its ranks by, inter alia, desensitising them to violence.

So according to you, the only Nazi characteristic I have is antisemitism rather than complicity in the murder of 6 million Jews. Why not restrict yourself to calling me antisemitic, rather than invoking such a grotesque historical atrocity? Seems tasteless at best.

And since I have never said nor implied that I have a problem with Jews defending themselves, your argument is clearly barking mad. Finally you have decided that rather than continually lose arguments, you’ll go for the smear. Shame on you.

BTW, punk, you haven’t given evidence of IDF “brutality” and “desentisizing of violence”. Nor did you explain what the heck is “proportionality”. So, I take it you are a liar and you lost the argument, once again. No news under the Sun.

“Breaking the Silence…has a clear political agenda, and can no longer be classed as a ‘human rights organization.’ Any organization whose website includes the claim by members to expose the ‘corruption which permeates the military system’ is not a neutral observer. The organization has a clear agenda: to expose the consequences of IDF troops serving in the West Bank and Gaza. This seems more of interest to its members than seeking justice for specific injustices.” (Amos Harel, Haaretz

” I’m talking about the way that the IDF as an institution dehumanises Israelis, makes them scared of Palestinians, gives them negative views of Arabs and desensitises them to violence”

just showing how people like Sanity don;t really know anything about Israel. The IDF don;t need to make us scard of palestinians. They did a nice job of it themselves with all thier terror acts agianst us in the streets , cafee ., buses. With their rockets being fired at us for years , with their killing people in theri beds and I mean long before Hamas. They did a nice job with all their wars. The arabs give a negative views of themselves in all our history long before 1948.

“..(if you want to conflate Jews and Israelis that’s up to you, though it’s wrong and I never do it…”
Demonising the IDF and denying that the IDF is Jewish is a good example of the new antisemitism.
Clearly you as new antisemite must avoid to be marked as that, I understand your problem not to be conflated with old antisemites after the holocaust, you want an innocent antisemitism.
But who defines himself as antizionist declares himself as sworn enemy of the Jewish state, of Israel, the state of the Holocaust survivors and of the refugees from Arab pogroms throughout the post-WWII Arab world. Nothing else.
And so, you are whether a conscious antisemite of the new order or you unconsciously follow these newly developed patterns.
Antisemitism is nothing fixed, but keeps moving, developing. Alas, that the left gave sanctuary to and added new arguments for it.

First, your claim that the IDF is Jewish. This very website was recently chastising the Guardian for claiming that Jewish only homes were being built in the West Bank. The reason? The Guardian had made a lonk between IDF veterans and Jews. This website was up in arms! There are plenty of Arabs in the IDF it bellowed. I guess you were criticising this website for its antisemitism then were you?

Second, I have not ‘demonised’ the IDF. I have simply said that it dehumanises its recruits. Nothing more nothing less. If anything, my concern for the welfare of the recruits shows philosemitism.

Finally, I have never declared myself an anti-Zionist. Please give us a link to the place where I have done so if you sincerely believe it.

I supsect as usual, demands for actual evidence will not be met with requisite evidence.

“Sanity”, I find it terribly, if not somewhat disturbingly farcical, that you accuse others of trolling, given that the premise of your presence here, is to troll(c.f. your insertion of pathetic demands to find out how “this blog is financed”, in an obscenely off-topic manner, on nearly every thread you’ve polluted).
Finally, regarding your oft-repeated mantra about the IDF: unless you qualify the same statement of yours to other armed-forces in the world(say, the US, the UK, NATO, &c), you are, in effect demonising the IDF, and in a twist of irony, you do so without any sort of evidence.
The fact is, that causality ratios in Israel’s conflicts(i.e. combatants to non-actors) have been of the lowest in the world.
Quite the contrary becomes apparent when dealing with NATO.

Post-modern anti-Semites, like sanitarium and snottyville want the best of the worlds: to claim the moral high ground of being paragons of anti-racism while at the same time barfing all the standard Jew-hating tropes masked as “anti-Zionisms”. They are either morons or mendacious hypocrites (or both). Just grotesque.

You are not criticizing, hypo, you are demonizing. That’s what your type of post-modern anti-Semites do: you demonize, apply double-standards and malicious hypocrisy; then, when unmasked, you whine and throw self-righteous little tantrums.

101, with respect, you haven’t read what I wrote. My concern is not with the number of casualties that the IDF inflicts, but with the psychological effect it has on its own recruits. Sure, I share shis with all armies, but the manner in which they are conscripted and treated at such a young age is more worrying, in my opinion, than most other armies in the developed world.

“Sanity”, I call BS.Firstly, if you were really concerned about the “psychological” effects, you would clearly have observed, based on the material I brought, that they don’t manifest themselves in reality. These brave soldiers, don’t, as it were, engage in any unbehovely conduct, at least not in numbers disproportionate to what’s done in other armies, the world over.Secondly, Young age, numbers, you must be joking!
Where’s your protest about South Korea’s conscription? which is not only mandatory(at the age of 18, equally so, for the IDF), but is done in far greater hosts than in Israel…(And the ROK spends about 10 times as much as Israel, on its military)
Or how about Singapore?
Perhaps Germany?
What makes the IDF different?(other than the fact, that unlike the examples listed above, it(the IDF) exists to protect a nation from enemies sitting at its doorstep?).
Lastly, I don’t seriously suppose, for a minute, that you believe with a fury, all the nonsense you write here.
I am convinced that you spew this drivel particularly to draw ire, and attention(perhaps you relish it), and I am saddened to see that people have been entertaining your lurid desires.

YOu can’t compare those other militaries because in those militaries, conscripts don’t actually do any fighting. They are not put in war situations. I do however, think that the level of militarisation in South Korea may be similar to what is felt in Israel, though I have never been to Korea so hard for me to tell.

I have no problem with Israel having an army. All countries do. I just have a problem with the level of dehumanisation that results from the practices deployed by it. Using childis descriptions like “brave” to describe soldiers does nothing to hide that they are really just scared adolescents in a situation where they shouldn’t be.

What kind of nonsense is that?
Israel keeps this military, precisely because it has genocidal threats aimed against.
That they “shouldn’t be there”, but still are, is a direct consequence of the fact that these enemies are present there, scattered around Israel, threatening it.
As I have shown, many nations have mandatory conscription, and are perfectly modern, industrialised, and have faced action: South Korea in Iraq, Germany in Afghanistan(and is in fact, the third largest troop contributor), the Netherlands, in the same setting, etc; your assault on the IDF, in this case(as it is obvious you’re not armed with any facts whatsoever) is simply done to get attention; therefore, it is plainly obvious, that you type this garbage only to inspire rebuke.
You’ve had enough, and so have I.

Yes and you’ll find those armies who have seen significant service in dangerous places where they shouldn’t be are scarred. There were more suicides in the US army than combat deaths last year. Germany and Netherlands send hardly any of their troops into combat. South Korea has one of the largest standing armies on the planet. WHat percentage is in Iraq or Afghanistan? These comparisons are meaningless. The fact is, day after day the adolescents who get sent to do dangerous work in the IDF are being scarred and dehumanised. I don’t care what you think of me and my motives. Yu can even disagree, and I won’t be upset, but don’t ruin it all with accusations of antisemitism, because actually, my concern is for the ver young men and women, mostly Jews, who face this situation.

Let’s not pretend this is anything but a desperate cry on your part, for some attention, and social company. That’s the only reason why you would continue to rehash the same uninventive, paltry persiflage.
Like I said, were this some genuine conviction on your part, you would’ve railed with the same supposed regard against other militaries, and labelled them, equally, “dehumanising”…
“Antisemitism”? Ha, hardly! You’re far too underequipped in your rants here, to suggest that. As I have demonstrated, this is a rather airy call on your part for human interaction, which, I am done providing. Go ahead and have the last word, if you like.

Also, let’s also mark a certain standard:
—>People who have completed secondary/equitable education; –
—>Who can legally drink;
—>Who can vote;
—>Who can drive;
—>Who can choose a career path(in University or some other tertiary form);-
—>Who can buy real-estate;
—>Who are requested to pay taxes;
—>Who are classified adults, by the UN convention on the Rights of the Child;
—>Who are eighteen!,Are NOT ADOLESCENTS, but grown men and women.

Actually, I would be accused of distracting, being a diversion if I started posting about how dehumanising the US army is. But if you promise not to accuse me so, I’ll happily start a discussion on the topic.

And they have to risk their young lives because a bunch of islamofascist losers want to destroy them. Meanwhile, sanitarium can vomit his hypocritical Jew-hatred from his confortable couch while drinking soda and munching chips. Pathetic despicable racist.

Is it just my criticism of the IDF that is antisemitic, or any criticism of the army of Israel, the Jewish (and democratic) state?

The problem is not your criticism Sanity but the fact that you lie about it. YOu blam the IDF about something that is not ture and that is the problem in order to make it look bad. The same way the Protocole of the Eder of Zion do .

Good grief, sanatorium, you are not only a professional hypocrite but also a shameless liar. I have no need nor am I interested in defending the moderator. This is his blog, not mine. YOU are the biggest suck up and whiner around, accusing everybody you disagree with of racism and then crying foul when your blatant hypocrisy is exposed.

Good grief! Your hypocrisy and double-standards are grotesque. Many people here already observed that many times. Get down from your self-righteous pedestal and try cultivating just a little tiny bit of self-criticism.

@ sanity, there are enough websites for the likes of you, left extreme, right extreme, islamist, peace warrior against Israel, ..
Why are you obsessed wth this particular website? Because it is Jewish?